tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN November 3, 2015 7:00pm-9:01pm EST
the chair: the yeas are 196 and the yeas are 25. the request on amendment printed in house report 114-325 on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 114-325. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the yeas are 187 and the nays are 236. the amendment is not adopted. a request on amendment number 15, by the the gentlewoman from florida, on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed. the clerk will re. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. brown of florida. the chair: those in support of the recorded vote. a sufficient number having arisen will rise. a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house
the chair: the yeas are 216 and he nays are 207. the request for a recorded vote by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, on which further proceedings were proceeded the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the recorded vote has been requested. those in. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: the yeas are 160 and the nays are 263. the amendment is not adopted the request is on amendment number 31 by the gentleman from california. and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: house amendment number 31, offered by mr. takano of california. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 174, the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 precipitationed in part b of house report 114-325 by the gentlewoman from california, ms. brownley, mr. wynne: further proceedings were postponed and on which the voice failed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by ms. brownley of california. the chair: a recorded vote has been combed. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 160, the nays are 263, the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 34 by the gentlewoman from american samoa on which further proceedings were postponed and the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mrs. radewagen of american samoa. the chair: a vorded -- a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the .s. house of representatives.]
coverses off the of the house floor -- their conversations ff of the house floor. it is now in order to consider amendment number 37 printed in art b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from missouri seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will kess nate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mrs. artzler of missouri. the chair: the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off of the house floor. pursuant to house resolution 07, the gentlewoman from missouri and a member opposed each will control five minutes.
the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from missouri. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. chair. i ask unanimous consent that my amendment be modified in the form i have placed at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification to amendment number 37, offered by ms. martzler of missouri -- ms. hartler -- harts -- mrs. hartzler of missouri. mrs. hartzler: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the modification. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. without objection, the amendment is modified. mrs. hartzler: thank you, mr. chair. my amendment gets our priorities right in our highway funding by prohibiting federal funds from being used for landscaping and scenic beautification on highway projects. we should spend our federal highway dollars to improve our roads and bridges, not plant flowers. from 1992 to 2013, over $1.3 billion was spent on
landscaping and scenic beautification. with data shows over 61,000 bridges classified as structurally deficient and 65% of rds in the united states in less than good condition, this is outrageous. i appreciate roadside landscaping but given today's limited highway dollars, these initiatives are best left to volunteer organizations such as the popular adopt a highway program. we must ensure that federal funds are applied where they're needed most and that's upgrading and improve our national infrastructure. and i reserve the balance of my time. mr. defazio: claim time in opposition. i appreciate the gentlelady's concern about the condition of our bridges and i talked a lot
of time on that issue and opposed the stimulus bill. but in this case, i think perhaps there is some drafting errors in the amendment because it would preclude using these funds for rest areas, which i, i think, is problematic, we have a crisis in terms of safe places for people to pull over, both commercial truck drivers and individuals. i assume the gentlelady did not mean to preclude the area for rest areas. and i don't know missouri well, but in the west, we have used these landscaping funds when we do new construction or significant construction to reduce maintenance costs because we have wild fire danger in the
west and if you could plant native that will dominate or are t fire-prone, you don't have prevent a wildfire. leaving the zrecks to the states to use these fund depending upon their conditions i think is important. so i'm certainly not for any sort of -- there have been a couple of instances in the past bills where they went overboard with this kind of stuff. the current restricks are such and there is no mandate for the projects for resurfacing or anything else. and it is new construction and it is appropriate for the state and including rest areas. and i oppose the gentlelady's
amendment the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mrs. hartzler: i appreciate the gentleman's concerns and i appreciate his concerns and i want to make sure rest areas are kept intact. and this amendment does not address that section. so there would still be that option. my amendment wants to make sure our highway tax dollars are needed and this picture points out and 6 5% of our road system in our country now which is in failing and bad condition. there are many deaths caused every year due to the crumbling of our highways and we have 61,000 bridges that are considered structurally deficient. this makes sure that the dollars, every time people fill
up their cars with gas that those dollars will go to road and not going to go to highway beauty fix. ask for the support of my colleagues. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: unfortunately, the department of transportation disagrees. we sent this language to them and they said yes it is by repealing, the amendment would remove the secretary's authority to approve the cost of landscaping and rodside development and development of publicly owned rest and recreation facilities reasonably necessary to accommodate the traveling public. i'm pleased it was not her
intention, but according to d.o.t., this amendment would do that. so i would oppose the amendment as drafted. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from most as modified. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment as modified is not agreed to. mrs. hartzler: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from missouri will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 in house report 114-325, for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: printed in house report offered by mr. farenthold
of texas. the chair: the gentleman from texas mr. fearpt hold and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. farenthold: i yield myself 90 seds. this bipartisan would allow trucks with current weight exemptions to continue to operate after highways in texas are redesignated as interstate 69. this will not increase truck weights. this is a narrow amendment that does not include new trucks. but only a louis those that will continue to operate. the state of kentucky was able to include this language for their state who were facing this problem. this models kentucky's language but includes texas highways and
with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i claim the time in opposition. i support the amendment. the chair: without objection the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from from texas, mr. babin. mr. babin: every one of this hears a lot about trucks and heavier trucks and i think by now it is safe to say we have heard a lot about trucks. this amendment isn't talking about heavier trucks as my colleague said. all we are talking about is allowing the state of texas through an approval process to
keep the same weight limits that are in place on certain trucks on certain sections of our road. not bigger or heavier but the same. the new blue signs for interstate 69 in east texas on't mean a new interstate but financial ruin for our loggers and a very tough time for our timber industry. and it will mean a decrease in the weight that all the loggers can haul on their trucks that they have been doing. even back when the same texas counties were represented by our congressmen, charlie wilson, i'm asking my colleagues to join me in the supporting this bipartisan amendment to allow the state of texas to be treated in the exact same way that this
ame body treated the states of kentucky and mississippi and help save jobs. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. and the gentleman from texas. mr. farenthold: it is not the forestry industry as well. cotton industries and certain eas in south texas is u.s. highway, making it difficult for the trucks to make improvements to those roads to praffle on the road. i thank chairman shuster for his work and his not opposing this amendment. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment
s agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in part b 114-325. >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in part bmp of house report 114-325 offered by mr. rooney of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution of 507, mr. rooney and a member opposed will each control five minutes. mr. rooney: i rise today to ask my colleagues to support my amendment to h.r. 22 which would allow for states to give ranchers the flexibility they need in transporting livestock
by truck. florida is home to 1.7 million head of cattle and there are a million head of beef. nationally florida comes in ninth place in overall cattle numbers. in fact, the top three ranking counties for cattle in my state state my back yard of the of florida. cattle is a could you path operation state. could yous are bred but they are shipped out west. our cattle ranchers we lie on the shipping of cattle in order to succeed. unlike most goods shipped by truck or rail, livestock needs special attention. shipments are organized to
consider the needs and welfare of the animals being shipped. the goal is to move the cattle between locations safely and as fast as possible to minimize the stress on the animals. unform, this is where washington regulations get in the way. the current gross weight restrikes for all trucks on federal highways is 80,000 pounds. this restriction results in an empty livestock trailer and ends up putting more trucks on the road. the patchwork of state and national truck weight laws create inefficiencies and forces vestock transporters to take longer routes. their hauls nationwide, these contrapets reduce the efficiency
of their operation. my amendment allows states to issue special permits for the transportation of lifestock on railers for up to 95,000 pound focusing om on livestock shipping and allowing states to opt into this program. my amendment would greatly benefit not only ranchers but all american ranchers and consumers. this amendment means fewer trucks on the road and lower costs for transporting livestock. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment and takeoverly restrictive red tape out of the production of beef. my amendment is supported by the largest trade organization. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and make
america work for america's cattle ranchers. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. defazio: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i yield myself such such time as i may consume. an amendment was defeated to go to 90,000 pound and at least the amendment on 90,000 had an additional axle that made it compliant with the bridge formula that is not causing undue influence. this does not require an additional axle. so it would violate the federal bridge formula and federal highways says as estimated a truck at this weight with the number of axles they have is
paying 43% of the damage they cause to the system and that's about underpayment of $6,000. the bill does allow them to be charged another $200 a year but that is pretty big deficit with an already substantially deteriorated system. raising truck weights is very controversial and difficult proposition because we have to look out for the taxpayers in terms of undo wear and tear to the system. 10,000 bridges. they need repair and replacement and that would accelerate that problem. i appreciate the gentleman's advocacy but i have to oppose that increase and reserve.
the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. . mr. rooney: the amendment increases the cap of weight on these trucks but if we look at it in the standpoint of each individual state, includeing my own, we have to think about things like trucks hiding on local roads. some of those bridges you're talking about that are most vulnerable are on those local roads. we also allow for states to be able to charge a small yearly fee to livestock haulers so that they can more efficiently transport their loads. so when we talk about actually reducing the number of trucks on the roads, getting them from out of shadows of these small local county and municipal roads so they're avoiding the interstate, i think the overall plus the fee that we'll be able to charge, i think that the overall result will be actual safer roadways. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman
reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i yield myself such time as i may consume. my state's a little unique. we have a weight mile formula, we charge to the trucking industry. federally when i first served here, the industry tried to preempt it a number of times. never did. and it's now widely recognized as one of the fairest systems in the state, in the states. because it apportions according to scientifically based research, much of it done at oregon state yoofrlt. in the labs there -- university. in the labs there. the impact of individual vehicles. in this case d.o.t. says these vehicles would cause an additional $6,000 per vehicle per year damage on the federal system and they would be charged $200. i don't think there's that's a fair return to the taxpayer -- i don't think that's a fair return to the taxpayer. i reserve the balance of my time. i urge people to oppose the amendment. mr. rooney: mr. chairman, if the gentleman has no more
speakers, i will yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from oregon yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. mr. rooney: i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: under clause 6 of rule 1, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from -- 18, further proceedings offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment.
the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in part b of house eport 114-325 offered by mr. resolve -- rothfus of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from pennsylvania and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. rothfus: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today to discuss the need to help communities impacted by natural disasters get back on their feet without facing unnecessary regulatory obstacles. families, businesses and all members of the community may face significant challenges when the roads, bridges, transit and other infrastructure they use on a daily basis are not acceptable and not repaired in a timely manner. we can all agree that we should do what we can to protect the environment from harm. however, we should carefully reconsider regulations currently in place that delay transportation infrastructure projects and remove or reform regulations that are inefficient, redundant or harmful. i would include the redundant
and time consuming environmental reviews required for rebuilding disastered damaged infrastructure in this category. those who might argue that there's already enough flexibility in current law for communities to efficiently restore their critical infrastructure after a natural disaster or during a state of emergency should consider the following information from the federal highway administration. f.h.a. estimates that it takes an average of 58 months, that's almost five years, for transportation projects to complete the nepa process. and since 2010 federal permitting holdups have delayed at least nine transportation projects in my state of pennsylvania by more than a year. at the very least, we should consider removing reconstruction projects for critical disaster damaged infrastructure from this drawn-out process. no community trying to rebuild and restore its critical infrastructure after a natural disaster should have to endure such a long delay. simply to rebuild infrastructure that has already been built before. my amendment, which was inspired by legislation introduced by senator toomey in the last congress, and
democratic senator ben nelson before him, is intended to speed up reconstruction efforts. my proposal would exempt projects to rebuild any road, highway, railway, bridge or transit facility that is damaged in a declared emergency from additional environmental permitting. it's important to note that my amendment may only apply to projects where the same structure is being rebuilt. in other words, damaged infrastructure would need to be reconstructed in the same location with the same capacity , dimensions and design as before the emergency. it should be commonsense that additional environmental reviews of this sort aren't a good use of taxpayer money and aren't helpful to disaster victims. some commonsense streamline something appropriate in these challenging cases. because of this, this proposal has been supported by a number of groups, including camtran, the transit a agency for cambria county, pennsylvania, the national association of counties, the pennsylvania association of township
supervisors, the pennsylvania state association of burroughs, the county commissioner's association of pennsylvania, southeast pennsylvania transit authority, and national stone, sand and gravel, as well as americans for prosperity. i urge all of my colleagues to advance this commonsense reform and help communities recover after natural disasters by voting iaea on my amendment -- yea on my amendment. thank you, mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from oregon is recognized. mr. defazio: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. defazio: grant myself such time as i may consume. actually, most of the statutes that the gentleman's talking about already specifically have waivers and exceptions for natural disasters for emergency reconstruction. under the clean water act. under the endangered species act. under nepa. just enacted three years ago in map 21. nd, you know, so i'm -- this
seems to perhaps be broader. i don't fully understand the implications. but since any statute that could cause delay furks look at the minnesota bridge collapse, you look at the reconstruction of vermont after the catastrophic hurricane flooding a few years ago, if you look at work in louisiana, all these waivers were put into effect and the projects were not unnecessarily delayed. but this is a much -- seems to be a broader and more general grant and i don't fully understand the implications and feel it could potentially ewe certain -- usurp unnecessary reviews so i would oppose the eam. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. rothfus: this is a simple remedy following a natural disaster. i look at my state of pennsylvania, with its many vallies and river beds and look at the people supporting or who have supported this type of
proposal before. again, the national association of counties, pennsylvania association of township supervisors, southeast pennsylvania transit authority, we need to make sure that our communities have a robust capacity and ability to respond in the event of a disaster. and that's what the point of this amendment is. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- the ayes have it. the amendment is not agreed to -- i'm sorry, is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition. >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 41 president clintonned in part b of house report 114-325 offered by mr. desan yea of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from california and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. desauliner: thank you, mr. chairman. this bipartisan amendment establishes an independent peer review group to address the quality assurance, cost containment and risk management and in addition creates a stricter cost management plan for federal transportation projects that cost over $2.5 billion. so it's only federal projects over $2.5 billion, it doesn't
apply to anything below $2.5 billion. as we all know, large infrastructure projects are vital to our country's development and economic growth. unfortunately nine out of every 10 megaprojects experience cost overreturns and suffer significant delays -- overruns and suffer significant delays. this is according to an extensive research project out of cambridge university in england. current law already requires financial reporting for projects costing more than $500 million but no additional oversight such as what we have in this bill exists for the largest, most complex egaprojects. all of these projects would have benefited greatly from a comprehensive risk management plan and independent peer review group, according to the experts. the public deserves a system that manages costs, foresees
risks and holds decision makers accountable. in my prior life as a member of the california state legislature and the state senate, we had a bipartisan investigation and public hearings as to what went wrong and what lessons could be learned from our overruns on the oakland-san francisco bay bridge replacement that was replaced, a project that was $5 billion overbudget, 10 years late. starting in the -- the project started unfortunately in 1989 because of the earthquake. the idea in this bipartisan review was just to learn what we could from our experience, not to cast any judgments. amongst most significant things we were told were the implementation of a rigorous -- with the least conflict of interest possible peer review group and a more rigorous cost assessment and cost review process. this amendment establishes that independent peer review group consisting of at least five individuals without conflicts
of interest tasked with giving expert advice on scientific, technical and management aspects of a megaproject. the amendment saves taxpayer dollars and reduces projects' timelines by requiring a comprehensive risk management plan that includes a description of identified risks sorked with the project, proposed meck -- associated with the project, proposed mechanisms and updated cost estimates. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense, bipartisan amendment. and i yield back. or i don't yield back, i'm sorry. oh, that the point i'd like to yield up to two minutes to mr. lamalfa. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lamalfa: thank you, mr. chairman. i'm pleased to join my colleague from california to support this effort to rein in cost overruns on large complex projects that end up costing taxpayers far more than original estimates. too often extremely large projects suffer from extreme cost overruns that not only fail to provide good value to
taxpayers, but damage other infrastructure by absorbing funds that could support other transportation projects. in california, for example, the state's high speed rail proposal is estimated to cost over twice what voters were promised and no honest observer actually believes that estimate is even high enough at twice. for roject's growing costs other transportation systems, including key infrastructure that people are demanding like roadways and highways, or in this time of record drought in california, with unlimited funds, maybe even for water storage projects in that area. if this amendment were in place today, congress would have the benefit of an independent peer review analysis when determining whether to provide funding and the project would have prepared a detailed risk management plan to control costs. very similar when i was a state senator in california, my bill, senate bill 22, to do this very same thing, similarly on high speed rail at the time. policymakers need accurate and
partial information to make decisions and this amendment will ensure that information is available. mr. chairman, i urge support of this amendment and i yield back. thank you to my colleague from california. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment, i believe, is unnecessary. it's special requirements and protections that are already in place, for any project costing more than $500 million. a much lower threshold than proposed by the gentleman's amendment. each project must have a project management plan that documents procedures to manage the scope, cost, schedules, federal requirements, applicable to the project. the plan must also document the role of the agency's leadership and the project management team in delivering the project. each major project must have in place an annual financial plan that provides detailed estimates of the costs to complete the project, including
future increases in the costs of the project. so gernings it's already in the bill, it's at a much lower threshold than the gentleman's so i would urge all members to oppose the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. >> how much time do i have left? 30 seconds. >> i want to thank the gentleman for helping me through a rookie mistake. it's the intention of the author this would be in addition to. with that, i respectfully ask for an aye vote and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceed option the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will e postponed.
it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in part b of house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i rise as the designee of the gentleman from maryland and have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 prointed in -- printed in house report 114-325 offered by mr. beyer of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. beyer and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to recognize chairman shuster and ranking member defazio for their hard work on the bill and for considering mr. van hollen's and my amendment.
it woult regulate the tow truck industry. through provisions slipped into the aviation administration act that defined the tow truck city as an interstate carrier, state and local regulations of tow truck operators has been preempted. but the next year, passage of the interstate commerce act struck down the regulatory binding overseing the tow truck industry. so it left it without any oversight despite widely reported consumer abuses. in year since, a number of court -- rulings have been made on court cases between tow trucks and localities. some upheld local regulations, others stayed silent. with no federal regulator and a patchwork of rulings, no government has been able to adequately regulate the towing industry. that his led to more than two tech kids of major misconduct by
some unscrupulous tow companies. they continue to paint an otherwise much needed and respectable profession. states and localities are the logical towing regulators. they have an established body of law in place to do so. mr. chairman in my daily automobile business, we have long run around tow truck, we have contracted with independent tow truck companies for decades. most of them are hardworking, honest businesses. they work long days, night, weekends and all kinds of weather. but they are given a bad name but the few but real bad operators in the industry. this amendment is support wid the largest trade association, the owner-operator association. they talk about nonconsensual tows and say these are situations where there is no opportunity for motorists to negotiate services or compare prices among multiple tow
operators so it's critical that state vts the ability to enact important consumer protections. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment to end unnecessary and impractical federal overreach and return the support and authority to states to help end our constituents' frustrations with abusive towing practices. mr. chairman, i yield back. , i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition though i do not oppose. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i believe the gentleman's amendment is a sound amendment and i support it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. beyer: i thank the gentleman and yield become. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house
report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. mica: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 3, printed in house report 114-325, offered by mr. mica of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentleman from florida, mr. mica, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: thank you, mr. chairman. my colleagues, i know that the chairman and ranking member have done oweman's work in bringing this bill -- have done yoman's work in bringing this bill -- yoeman's work in bringing this bill forward. this is a special achievement. i've been there, tried to do this, and done it, and it's very difficult. sometimes we try not to interfere in the process but
from time to time an issue comes up that you try to negotiate and make sense out of. my amendment is pretty simple. in the committee bill, the bill committee has already allowed for a very limited number of automobile transporter vehicles to increase their length, from 75 to 80 feet. 75 feet. to accommodate approximately one more vehicle. there's no consideration for the way to correspondingly provide for, again, the increase in the length. is i've tried to negotiate between the industry. i do not support 91,000 pounds. i do not support 88,000 pounds. i do not support 86,000 pounds. but what i have said is, what
would it take to transport one more vehicle? and about -- there are 12,000 of these vehicles across the country. about what would it take to add one more vehicle to the length that's already in this bill? and it's about 4,000 pounds. so this amendment is simple. it says we'd allow in this limited instance to go to 4,000 pounds because the committee drafted bill before us has, again, a provision to increase and allow, again, the additional five foot length. so 40% of these carriers travel empty but we could actually force more vehicles on the road by not allowing this amendment and actually giving them the length but not the capacity to carry doesn't make sense. so that's my amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the
gentlewoman from california rise? mrs. napolitano: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentlewoman is recognized. mrs. napolitano: i do rise in opposition to this particular amendment offered by the gentleman from florida, mr. mica. this would raise the allowable vehicle weight of automobile transportors to 84,000 pounds, as was stated. it would also allow higher allowable axle weights up to 5% above the level set in current law. we have agreed in the base bill to provide an exemption for the extra length to allow for the additional vehicles to be added to an automobile transportor. so amendment to this to raise truck weights are very controversial and have the potential to weaken support for an otherwise carefully negotiated bill. i ask my colleagues to vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. mica: reclaiming my time,
i'm very disappointed that the other side of the aisle would not consider this well thought out, reasonable amendment. the underlying bill does allow, again, five additional feet. it would accommodate another vehicle but no accommodation for weight. that just does not make sense. we're talking about a very limited number of transporting vehicles. and so, even having offered on many occasions vehicles on the other side to present reasonable amendments, given that opportunity, and not being allowed that tonight. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. the chair: without objection the mendment is withdrawn. it is now in order to consider amendment number 44 printed in part b of house report 114-325.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. delbene: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 44 printed in house report 114-325 offered by ms. delbene of washington. the chair: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. delbene, and a member oposed each will control five minutes. ms. delbene: thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to thank chairman shuster and ranking member ms. norton ell as for their work on this bill. this amendment will ensure the government is getting the best return on our investment while helping the most people. this -- the underlying bill plovidse grants to train and
recruit underrepresented populations for career pathways in transit maintenance and operations. by establish apprenticeships and forging local and regional training partnerships, these grants will provide targeted hands on training for workers adelose country. this is critical for identifying potential work force shortages in the future and filling those gaps with skilled workers. work force development programs are often referred to as ladders of opportunity, helping people find good-baying, long-term employment is the best way to ensure everyone has access to economic opportunities. the program included in today's bill is a great example of this. it will help low income americans become self-sufficient by giving them specialized training to secure a career in the transit field and increase their earning potential. and it will identify the best ways to help the most people succeed. my amendment would simply require a report on the frontline work force development program for each fiscal year.
the report would include an evaluation of the overall program and would include policy recommendations to improve the program's effect i haveness. the amendment would not affect direct spending or revenue and is budget neutral according to the congressional budget office. i firmly believe that this amendment improves the underlying bill which will inject a sorely needed boost to our nation's infrastructure and economy and i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition though i do not oppose. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. shuster: i appreciate the gentlelady's work on the amendment and support it. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. delbene: i thank the gentleman for his support and yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 45 printed in part b, house report 114-325. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? mrs. napolitano: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 45 printed in part b of house report 113--- 114-325 offered by mrs. napolitano of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 507, the gentlewoman from california, mrs. napolitano, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. chairman. i, too, want to thank mr. shuster and mr. defazio for their great work on this bill. it has been absolutely amazing. thank you so very much. this is a bipartisan bill with -- amendment, with mr. royce and
mr. calvert and would allow a state or federal -- state or local transportation agency to apply for a waiver from the current h.o.v. degradation andard if the secretary of transportation determines the waiver is in the best interest of the traveling public and that the state or local agency has made an effort to improve the performance of the h.o.v. lane. the secretary may require them to take additional action to improve the h.o.v. lane. the current standard requires h.o.v. lanes to maintain an average speed of 45 miles per hour, 90% of the time during peak hours. i repeat, during peak hours this arbitrary standard does not take into consideration or account the specific transportation concerns of each state. over 60% of california highways are noncompliant by this federal degradation standard which means california will be forced to spend limited resources on transportation projects that do
not meet the needs of the general public. . they will also have to reduce the number of energy efficient vehicles it allows on the h.o.v. lane. we have studied the shee shoo and found they do not meet the minimum driving speed standard because accidents, weather events and other unpredictable events. the degradation standard is supposed to address manageable reour occurring congestion but caroline is -- but california is not compliant. this amendment would allow d.o.t. to recognize that there are special circumstances in each state that lead to lane degradation and that do not always include recurring congestion. the amendment would allow d.o.t. to grant waivers to states and local agencies that apply based on their local congestion concerns. it will protect states against a one-size-fits-all federal policy that does not work for each state. mr. chairman, i ask support and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman
reserves the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i seek time in opposition although i do not oppose. the chair: without objection, the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. mr. shuster: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you, mrs. napolitano. i understand that california has unique issues with h.o.v. degradation. and i believe a waiver process is appropriate. one size does not fit all. i think this is another case and example we can all learn from. california's different from pennsylvania. pennsylvania's different from minnesota. i appreciate your fighting, continuing to fight for this eafment i know the gentlewoman from south carolina was also an advocate for this. we went back and forth on negotiations t in one minute, out the next. but i appreciate your perseverance and mrs. walters perseverance, that we were final finally able to get this to the floor and get an agreement on. so i support this amendment. i think it's the right thing to
do. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does -- the gentlewoman from california voiced. napolitano thap thank you, mr. chairman, and -- mrs. napolitano: thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for those kind words, mr. shuster. i want to thank mrs. walters, congressman royce and calvert for their support on this amendment. i look forward to continuing to work on transportation and thank you for hanging in there this late in the evening. i look forward to working with you and ranking member defazio on this issue during the conference. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. shuster: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.
the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee on the whole us who of the state of the union, having had under consideration the senate amendment to h.r. 22 directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that committee has had under the senate amendment to h.r. 22 and has come to no resolution thereon. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. larson of connecticut for today and mr. takai of hawaii for november 2 and the balance of the week.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, sir. this is to notify you, pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives, that i have received a subpoena issued by the united states merit systems protection board. after consultation with the office of general counsel regarding this subpoena, i will make the determinations required under rule 8. aaron t. ncerely, weston. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1rk the house -- the chair declares the news to recess subject to the call of the chair.
-- significant milestones for republicans. yesterday was five years since ava capture the majority in the house and obviously, we have the new leadership with paul ryan. as we know, as americans, this has been the greatest experiment in self-government that the world has ever seen. as we move forward, it is important that we are asking ourselves, how do we function more effectively on behalf of the people across this country. it starts with rebuilding trust. and our ability to do the people's work. we see the judicial branch making decisions, an executive branch that is developing products -- developing policies that the concern of the people ended his concerns americans and rightfully so. the house of representatives by design is a body that is close to the people, accountable to the people and must be most
transparent. must rethinkhy we government from the top down, and restore representative power to congress. because as we restore that power to the people, we the people, that means every man, woman and child in this country, will be able to fill their version of the american dream. humbled, let me say i'm and eager and excited to be here with this fantastic leadership team in this role. thursday was a great day. thursday was a day where we came together and unified and agreed to proceed together with a vision. this year, you will see, the highway bill is a good place to start. we are opening up the process and we're allowing people to dissipate in ways that the
wending members intended and will fix our roads and bridges and our infrastructure. we are going to have an open process on the floor with lots of amendments considered by all members of all parties. how we good example of are going to do the people's business. and i've told people we are trying to do more of this. i'm very committed. i'm committed to a complete change to the rules of the house. this as ang to do team and we are going to get this right for the american people. this is the people's house. the people thousand us to do the people's business. we have to start by working on issues that are near and dear to americans who need to see progress in america. toi am excited about getting work and the leadership team. i want to turn it over to ken mccarthy.
excited about speaker paul ryan and all of the new changes. i want to take one moment to reflect on the differences between problem-solving and politics in washington and there is a great example of this. last night, you heard from the company sponsored overbuilding the keystone pipeline. they asked the state department to rescind their state department, why? because it has been seven years. it is an example of the administration, devoid of critical thinking. take what you see on the floor in the house. bill up the senate highway with the politics from the house , we have many amendments to take up ideas on both sides of the aisle. we are not afraid of having an idea or finding a solution to a major problem. that is the difference you will see between the current
administration and the new leadership. we want to solve problems, regardless of how different and difficult they are. we have -- we want to bring creative thinking to a process that allow every voice to be heard. i am excited about the change and what the future holds. more portly, i'm excited about making this change. i want to welcome speaker paul veryand our members are excited about this new opportunity and i think you saw this displayed over the weekend when paul went out and did all of the sunday talk shows and vision,bout the new rooted in conservative solutions to getting our country back on creating jobs. of course, it starts this week with the transportation bill, well over 100 amendments on the house floor. all numbers have an opportunity to join the debate to bring their ideas forward and it will
let the house decide. we can decide the best action forward. something that will get our economy moving again. one thing we will take up this week, and a think it is fitting as a move towards veterans day, the house will be taking up the authorization act, a bill that provides the basic constitutional responsibility to provide national defense. it is a strong bill that will be going forward, to provide troops with a pay raise and the tools and resources that they need and deserve, and also help our allies. it helps give money to the ukrainians, it helps our middle east allies who are fighting isis. this will be coming forward, and there is no better way to honor our troops and to pass this important bill and have the president sign it.
>> i want to think the leadership team, especially opening up ther process. there is nothing more exciting than to be the first batter up. truly, about this. we are going to go through the amendments, i think we can demonstrate that we can have an open process. this is a bipartisan bill. it is important to the economy and the jobs of american people we do so badly need this. flexibility and it creates more certainty for the folks out there who are doing work on our roads and of the structure around our country. it will streamline federal your accuracy. we every focused our efforts on what is important to the nation.
we are going to maintain strong commitments to safety. encouraging we are new information. to make sure we are taking them into account only built various forms of transportation. i'm excited to be here with you. i'm looking forward to this challenge. >> to me a favor, i think i know most of you, introduce yourselves? >> speaker ryan, thank you. you made clear over the weekend that you don't intend to pick up immigration under president , under a future president do you saw the goal of -- >> and think the fact that the president decided to go around congress, which is not what
presidents do, that is what congress does, i think he has proven himself untrustworthy. on issues such as border enforcement, where we have consensus, i think that would be fine. but i think if we try to move in a conference of way where the president has proven that he wants to go it alone, i don't think that works. only half the transportation bill is paid for. what do you say to conservative politics that it is business as usual? it is a three-year bill that has three years of financing. if we can come up with more financing we can add more years howhe bill area >> difficult is your job, given the fact that we have dozens of republican candidates, most of who are down talking republicans.
i am not concerned about the presidential election, that will work itself out. what i'm concerned about is doing our jobs here. we represent the people's interests here in congress and that is what we're going to do area did i said this on thursday, we are going to go on the offense. we are going to give the country a bold agenda because we don't think the country is heading in the right agenda -- in the right direction. we want to help hard-working taxpayers. we are going to go in a different direction. we are not going to worry about who is doing what in the presidential election. packer owners? -- youd that republicans
were on the ticket in 2012, was that not a clear choice that voters had in that case? >> i think we need to do more. we need to be more specific. handfule that the next of years will determine what kind of country we are going to have for a long time. we are a generational -- in a generational moment. so if we don't think the country is heading in the direction, and we don't think it is, we think that a president has been leading is in the wrong direction. that is why we feel that we have an obligation to the hard-working citizens of this country to show them how we will do things differently. fixed toet things advance our principles to show how we can make things better for people who are struggling. we will find out on wednesday.
-- t >> topline budget numbers are done. issue ofu approach the writers? we have a tough deadline, december 11. we don't have enough time between now and then. this is the legislative branch. willlly expect that we exercise that power. thank you, everybody. [indiscernible] >> that was republicans earlier today, the house right now, today and tomorrow, and even later, they are working on that highway mass transit bill. it is a funding bill. it rises to $45 billion by 2000 when he won.
we are waiting for the house to come back. they are working on figuring out amendments and how they will deal with that tomorrow. wen they get back underway, will have that for you. in the meantime, house democrats today met with orders, talking about voting rights. >> good morning. is aight to vote cornerstone of our democracy.
when the supreme court of the united states invalidated visions of the 1965 rights act, we were asked, that is, congress was asked, to update the formula . many people member that was based on 1964 voter turnout. over time, congress thought of updating sufficiently, laying out the records that were required. formula andpdated so we have been working hard to do that. we have seen, since that flurry of activity in various states around the country. they have been erecting impediments to voting.
advanced what we call actvoter right advancement to answer the supreme court's call to restore the vote. -- restore we have the vote. elections that are traditionally held on tuesdays, we are launching restoration tuesday for every member of congress every tuesday that we are in session, to raise the issue of restoring the vote. about both to talk of these recent episodes, as well as the presentation this
morning, i want to yields to the lady who has been at the forefront of this, the lady who the place that gave rise to the 1965 act. a lady from soma. selma. it is one year from the presidential elections of two dozens 16. i'm proud to be alongside the democratic members. strategy,legislative it is a national effort to mobilize support for the voting advancement act, sponsored by judy chu and -- sanchez to restore critical oversight. issuedreme court
congress a challenge to come up with a new formula. and we believe that the voting rights advancement act not only comes up with a new formula, a it looks atormula, recent voter discrimination since 1990, and in doing so, those states that have 15 or more violations will be covered under the clearance requirements. states that will be covered. those states range from new york , california, south carolina, andh carolina, and that -- arizona. it is a lot of states and to put it mildly, the voting rights advancement act is really about more federal protection to more people in more states. that is what we are here to do. welcome thed to president of the united states wife and children, as well as 100 members of congress,
many of them who were standing on the stage today to selma. it was a moment. we came back to washington after that march and we didn't do anything and it is unacceptable in this nation that we still have modern-day barriers to voting. we don't have to count how many marbles are in a jar but we do have voter id laws like the one in alabama, where people are required to have photo ids. the state of alabama decided to offices.dmv to close 31 offices, that would have been, under the clearance, it would not have been allowed. so they issued as a challenge, they said we needed to find modern-day examples. we want to declare every tuesday
that we are here restoration tuesday. we want to where our pin because as americanoting is as anything and want to make sure that our colleagues, republicans and democrats, gather in a call to action. , we haveo do just more to be motivated to do something about it and if one american is denied the right to vote, then it is the integrity of all americans in the electoral process. we call on our colleagues to help us are member that silencing any vote -- we must not silence any voice. these are the voices who will be included. thank you. >> thank you. are we all enthused? we are thankful for her passion
and great intellect on this subject. we do call on the co-authors of the legislation. this court decision shall be a county vote versus holder, it was an unfortunate decision of the court. it wasn't that long ago, in 2006, when we passed the voting rights act. it was passed unanimously. voted in ahouse bipartisan way for that legislation. we celebrated by going down the , and it was capitol a bipartisan initiative and lo and behold, and low hold, a few
years later, we decided it needed updating. we didn't think that was right but the court did rule in that way. when we were in selma this year, and the bipartisanship of those people were there who signed the , they signed act selma, coming back from they said that was all they were doing. bill and itartisan wasn't compromised. we thought it had a good arepect but they said you not getting a bill on the floor. and that isn't right. the whole voting rights integrity system is in question.
when they go to different we saw some of these barriers to be dissipation that are being put up in our own country, we would object to it. we cannot have that in our country. we are the beacon, the greatest democracy that ever existed, but only legitimate if every person who is qualified has the right to vote and those votes are counted. restoration tuesday gives us a way of reaching out and re-engaging the people, so they legislation that passes and their wives. so this is very important. the sponsors of the bill and the have been fundamental
to the democracy. and with that, i yields. >> thank you very much, leader pelosi. thank you very much to the representative of selma, alabama. that estimate so famous in the effort to ensure that everyone can vote. democracy is about inclusion. democracy is based upon these eerie that the more people who participate, the better product we will have. shelby county, famous for excluding people, came to court and said the situation has changed. , we havertunately
urged congress to accommodate the new circumstances. this is what this bill does. called an advancement act, it is an advancement of our democracy. justice ginsburg in the deciding opinion, said that the voting rights that george bush signed in 2006 should remain in place made a compelling analogy. majority had the an umbrella and it was raining hard but they weren't getting wet. so they decided to give the umbrella away. so, millions did of the excluded has been soaked in the bad policy of exclusion. to and willies
, out of the rain, into inclusion. that is why this bill is important. that is why this bill should be passed. tuesday, notvery just when we are in session, every tuesday, the voting day of americans. it is a voting day today. today, people are voting. that is what democracy is about. making sure that everybody can everybody's vote is counted. i'm so proud to join all of my colleagues here and the caucuses that represent so many people who find every day that they are excluded. be excludedt never
from participation in our democracy. i am pleased to yields to the chairman of our democratic caucus. >> thank you. , will first begin by saying thank you for never giving up. for leading us in this effort and to all of my colleagues who are here, for understanding the importance of what we discussed today. for so many of us who are standing here, this symbolizes so much. this lets us try to change the change the world for so if you will like our grandparents who did not have that opportunity. but the problem is this. this pin would not be possible if it weren't for what dp and represents. and that is the vote. vote, if we can't wear this pin here, we can't extend to others what we know they have longed for so long to
achieve. we should have that opportunity to say that we will vote, not just on the day of election but as members of congress, as people who will make a difference to others, so the reality is that we need everyone , literally and figuratively, so that many of us have the opportunity to continue to wear this and make this place so much better for those who never quite had the chance to dream. [speaking spanish]
>> our vote is our voice. there, it isanding personal, and that is why we are here to say, restore the vote. i will not yield to the vice-chairman. thank you. let me first say, thank you for your leadership on this issue. you have been tenacious. and let me say to my good friend from alabama, never curb your enthusiasm. it is contagious. i want to thank all of the cochairs responsible for restoring the vote. barriersmove the between americans and -- we can ensure that fundamental tenets of our country are held.
this bill has been called ambitious. aggressive. and that is exactly right. it is ambitious and aggressive. but most importantly, it is needed. because when one of the cornerstones of our democracy is at stake, we cannot build on anything else. by passing this bill we can restore the protections lost by the shelby county. canassing this bill we ensure that every voter, no matter where they live, or the color of their skin, is able to participate in our democracy to the fullest extent. by passing all ofll, we can say to those trying to restrict the right to vote, not today, not ever. let's passes legislation to protect the right to vote, let's make sure voter -- is a thing of the past.
that those who came before us, that their sacrifice is not a thing of history. restore the vote, and with that i would like to call on the chair of the black caucus of butterfield. >> thank you. good morning. i am congressman butterfield. we are present 23 states, elected by more than 30 million people. we are honored to because of eight in this press conference today. we look forward to future press conferences because the american people must know what is happening with voting rights in america. many of you have been covering this for many years and you know our system right well. our agenda includes so many things. thanng is more important the congressional black caucus, then eliminating voting barriers to voters.
we are called that states across the country are beginning to enact voting law changes with impunity that will have the purpose or effect of diminishing the influence of black votes in america. , of ourds us, painfully history where literacy test and -- were used in years gone by. the congressional black caucus is fighting back. court's rulingme in shelby county, we have witnessed a renewed assault on voting rights. we see it every day. of north state carolina, we are faced with the effort to disenfranchise black voters from legislatures redistricting plan which is now in litigation. to a voter id mandate that would threaten thousands of black voters, and so restoring, the inl effect of the act passed
1965, i remember it so well. it is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed by this congress. it eliminated the literacy test. a section five that would prevent states and local jurisdictions from restrictions.oter i want to reemphasize something that was set in the beginning. the u.s. supreme court did not strike down section five. that is a misunderstanding across the country. section five is intact. what is in question is the formula used to give light to section five. and so what the supreme court congress toask this
update the formula so that the justice department can continue to enforce certain -- enforce section five. colleagues, let's restore the vote. me -- signingith the 2006 extension of section five. i have enlarged. -- surrounding him and others on the south side of the capital, we signed the voting rights act. republicans and democrats need to join together. thank you. yields to all of our friends. no strangers to anyone in this body. a representative of the congressional hispanic chair of the hispanic caucus.
>> i am pleased to stand with my colleagues to stand up for voting rights. these attempts to restrict voting participation affect all of our communities. all of us here represent districts that are multicultural. they hurt all communities. in particular there are several communities that suffer the consequences and experience those consequences more. in this country, every 30 seconds, a latino turns 18 and becomes eligible to vote. next year, latinas are addicted to be 28.5 million voters nationwide. latinowth in the community is apparently threatening to some people because they are intent on trying to suppress their right to vote. years ago, the supreme court's decision in shelby county left 7 million eligible latino voters without fighting
total action. that is 7 million people too many. hasfor some reason, it become vote to attack the latino community. we have been vilified. we have been called marijuana smugglers. the only way we're going to stop those attacks on our community and toaise our voices participate in the vote. but when the right to vote is restricted, it limits your ability to stand up for yourself. so part of our job is to make sure that voting protections are strengthened. every time an early voting site is eliminated or a voter id law is incremented, that is another group of voters who is being kept from their fundamental right to vote. we must restore the right to vote.
[speaking spanish] >> it is personal. i come from a family of seven children. my parents are immigrants to this country. when they were first year, they were legal permanent residents without the right to vote. our 18th birthday, they made sure we registered to vote and we participated area did they thought it was the response ability of being a citizen in this country. they took this response ability seriously. i can only imagine how much more difficult our situation would have been made if we didn't have access to multilingual voting materials or if they moved polling places last minute on election day. we shouldn't be making voting harder for people in this country, we should welcome participation. we should be protecting the right to vote and we should be making participation possible.
i would like to turn it over to my colleague, who has been working with myself on this important piece of legislation, the chair for the islander caucus. as chair of the congressional asian pacific caucus, i stand with my colleagues today in support of restoring one of the most ingrid writes we have as americans. the right to vote. the recent assault on voting rights is shameful and the asian american and pacific islander community knows that all too well. it was congress that passed the chinese exclusion act which prevented chinese-americans from becoming nationalized citizens so they could not vote. ofleft a legacy disenchantment and it wasn't until the voting rights act passed that much of this changed for those previously shut out in the process. four decades, it
was our best tool to ensure that communities of all backgrounds had a right to vote in our democracy. , 70%sian-pacific islanders were born in a different country, this meant translated voting materials, absentee ballots and the freedom from intimidation at the polls. but since the supreme court , statesounty decision like texas and alabama have raised forces to enact terrible laws that are making it harder for communities of color to exercise their governmental right to vote. --is clear that we need this we need to pass hr 2867 and restore the right to vote. and now, i would like to turn it back over to our leader. >> thank you very much.
this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. was introduced by senator leahy and senator michalski. bill is bipartisan and i want to thank my colleagues for all the work they have done. we will now answer any questions you may have. -- >> is there -- the bill is very expensive. in the previous version, it was also bipartisan but more new if. is there any concern this bill is going back to a more new arrow version? >> you may